"it's unclear whether or not whatever AMD is doing here can even work on K8 if they tried."
Nope. I've been waiting for a board/BIOS maker to expose this chipset setting since the Athlon XP Mobile Barton CPUs first made me aware of it. My Mobile Barton Athlon XP was basically a completely unlocked bin-sorted Athlon XP 3200+ that was stable at lower voltages expected to be run at much-lower voltages and clock speeds.

With it, I discovered that there was clearly a chipset setting not exposed when my Mobile Barton failed to reach 200/400FSB in an nForce2 Ultra400 board (the Shuttle board inside my SN45G XPC... the FN45-whatever IIRC) while the same CPU could easily do 450+FSB in an Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe and an Abit NF7-S. The solution? Drop a thin wire inside the socket to make this completely unlocked CPU *DEFAULT* to 400FSB and it runs perfectly fine and can even go higher (the L12 trick/mod).

With the default FSB being the only difference (all settings/frequencies, including the FSB, were the same), it was very clear that it was related to a calibration setting that was automatically applied by the chipset based on the default FSB (100MHZ/200FSB for this unlocked CPU). Previously, I could only get to 333FSB before Memtest 86+ would start giving errors. There were some reports of even the overclocking boards (mentioned earlier) getting higher with the L12 trick and later many had BIOS updates and board revisions that seemingly integrated the trick. Regardless, the setting was still not exposed and was likely not even something the board/BIOS makers could expose (though they could spoof the default FSB I'd assume). It looks like AMD, having full control of chipset and board-level options here, has finally let the cat out of the bag.

Although the FSB has become the HT bus, the behavior is the same. Changing the calibration setting allows for higher clocks while actually becoming unstable at lower clocks. Ever accidentally erased the OSCAL calibration value on a PIC microcontroller and had to find a working value through trial and error? I'm guessing that this is why it was automatic before. Reply

| To be honest I find it hard to believe that they have a campaign
| against Linux. There would be nothing to gain and would have
| a zero fiscal gain.
|
| I think it is a bug you have found

After looking through the disassembled BIOS for the last several hours, rebooting it, and tweaking it more, I'd say this is very intentional, I've found redundant checks to make sure it's really running on Windows, regardless what the OS tells it it is, and then of course fatal errors that will kernel panic FreeBSD or Linux, scattered all over the place, even in the table path for Windows 9x, NT, 2000, XP, and Vista, and had to correct them (Well, at least divert them off into a segment of RAM I hope to god I'm sure about)

No, this looks extremely calculated, it's like they knew someone would probably go tearing it apart eventually and so tried to scatter landmines out so as to where you'd probably hit one eventually.

So if it is a mistake, or incompetence, then it's the most meticulous, targeted, and dare I say, anal retentive incompetence I've seen. Reply

I've never had much faith in Windows OC tools.
However if this one actually works and AMD can up their speeds a little then I may switch back for my next system.

I must say my 6400-8400(cheated got an e3110 with 20% discount when first released and they were all $280 or OOS for $170). Upgrade path was seamless and I feel bad going from 1950Pro to 8800GT 512 but I follow my wallet not the company I root for.

A cheap system built off cheap Black Box edition(OC'd easily with their tool) and 4870x2 would be pretty sweet come this December if the new cores are kicking and the utils work(a lot of ifs). Not that I need a new system though, but if one did. I don't see nehalems being affordable anytime soon(unless new AMD core rocks(another if)), although my mobo would support. I like the $200 mark for processors $100 for HDD's $200 for gpu's plus generally only needing 1-4 new parts for a yearly $400ish upgrade which is cheaper and allows better performance than the $1-2k some people build. Reply

I am really hoping that AMD can make some competition on CPU market as they did on the IGP (man i am really looking forward to the next IGP offer from AMD, the 780G is the king, the next chip will be a market consolidating move for sure)and VGA markets but i am not joking when i ask:

Will a 3.1Ghz ultraoverclocked quad core Phenom beat a $80 E2180@3,1Ghz in gaming and common day tasks?

As i remember the C2Ds are 15%-25% faster clock per clock, and the AMD CPUs consume MORE power for the same tasks , because they take LONGER to do the same task of a C2D. Reply

"We can't help but wonder if it is because AMD is going a little too far in the sacrifices it's willing to make in the quest for higher clock speeds." Hello? This is the one thing that keeps the latest generation AMD procs from being competitive with Intel's. Are we sacrificing stability that you're not telling us?

And then the bitching about the integrated LAN...please? Sounds like you guys are just pissed that AMD won't tell you the new SB works.

I remember from months ago, that the L2/L3 cache performance was changed to support larger cache sizes. Is it possible that the tweaks that ACC makes to the processor timing improve the cycle time or allow better lookahead? Reply

I for one am glad to see an AMD processor at 3.4ghz, if this is a new trend I am all for it.

I want to know what kind of clock-for-clock performance this has compared to an Intel, just for kicks.

I had a chat with a knowledgable IT guy, he claims that Intel systems boot faster to a usable desktop than AMD, and he has side by side bench tested them.

I didn't think to ask if he had done tests with comparable level 2 cache, an area that I think may be causing problems, AMD has no processors with 1M level 2 cache except a few older 90nm cores. They are just giving up in this area to Intel.

I applaud them for making neat server processors, but 512k level 2 cache is not cutting it these days.

I have been running on a Core2 "solo" Celeron 430 @2.4ghz for the last several months, and I must say while it is pretty damn fast there are times when it seems to "lock" or "micro-freeze" when it is doing a lot of multitasking. Reply

Na, the L2 cache is pretty unimportant for AMD processors, as the on chip memory controller is very fast. For example, the difference between 1M L2 and 512k L2 K8 processors at otherwise same speed is for most apps somewhere in the range of 0-5%.

Your single core Celeron locks in multitasking, because its single core.....single core is completely obsolete these days.

As to the boot speed: This heavily depends on the system config, bios etc. Plus: How often do you boot? I do that once a day and don't really care if it takes 30 sek more or less. Reply

One reason for the proprietary 6pin connection between SB and CPU could be: It's simply a hardware dongle to ensure the best possible oc results can only be found on AMD chipset mainboards......It is very hard to believe AMD could not have made the same thing possible by MSR programming in the CPU.
If AMD does not get more specific on this, we need true hardware nerds to sniff on these 6 lines and try to reverse engineer what's happening on them. Reply

Your linked source is not saying what you are saying. It's a guess. and conclusions are stated as being based on the assumption that the guesses and assumtions are true.

Your attitude overrides that - NOT END OF STORY. And the results reported here stand untouched by your opinion based on what someone else said is assumption and guess. (right or wrong).

Additionally the author of your referenced article is very gracious in excusing himself if his guesses and assumptions are incorrect. And yet he ungraciously comes down pretty heavy in ending his article. And that is what has triggered your own feigned knowledgeable statement.

Maybe it is true - and maybe not. But oclokrs must live in perpetual embarrassment if it is true - and you embarrass yourself in the face of hard testing and accurate reporting of results of that testing. If I wanted speculative guessing and assumption and self agrandisement based on possibly erroneous opinion, I would go read bullshit at toms bubblegum guide. You might enjoy that more since you are apparently so inclined.

You put 60 hours work behind your statement and you might understand a cheap slap.
Reply

You are right on my attitude about last post. Sorry about that.
But still I think the analysis of what could be happening here (based on both articles) is probably more in the line of CPU skew or some similar thing. It seems way easier to do with just 6 pins (4 or 5 really usable for ACC). Reply

I agree with you. And it seems plausible (at least) that skew is quite probably it. The report however is about facts and not /guess /assumption /opinion - and therein is it's value.

I fully expect that some will hack into this secret - much like was done before with AMD cpu's when they used the graphite pencil trix - it was all great.

Perhaps I owe an apology to you. I am a little overzealous since I have been seeking a factual, scientific review/testing site for some time. I like what's happening here. I hope I did not come down too heavily on you and the useful info that you presented. (altho the 'embarrass' part in that info,is merely abuse and useless shaming - essentially the stuff of flamewar, ego and fear (which reflects on the author).

The possibility that it is all about cpu skew/timings does not contradict what I have said. Why do you need a 6 pin connection from a southbridge to the CPU to change these settings? You can do that with simple register programming (MSRs). That's just like what has been done in the past (especially in timing settings of the AthlonXP FSB).

So for me the big secret 6pin connection still looks like a big hardware dongle to allow for AMDs overclocking tool to only work on AMD chipset mainboards. They wanted to make it 100% non-software accessible, so there would be no way of doing it on non-AMD chipset boards. That's all I said. And yes, it's also speculation. But as long as they keep it cloed source, it's a non-accessible feature for other chipset makers. Reply

Agree. However we don't know. Are they going to keep it secret? Is it about competition? or proprietary? Is there more to it? Is there a hidden ?thing? in Phenom? Is there "black magic"? Has it all been a deliberate lag behind so that they can come roaring back to life and look like the greatest thing since the resurrection? Look what they did to nvidiot with the 48x0 release. And the new CEO wants to offer more performance. Lots going on here = wow! This has my attention, and I want facts.

My point is that Anandtech is already barking up this same tree - they don't know - they have inquired - and they are reporting known facts - and that is the real food that we have come to eat. More will be revealed. Maybe the answer is the "don't dare mention"; but I doubt that. Maybe a lot of things. It's all exciting to me as AMD makes some noise.

The clock speed reported by CPU need not tell the whole story. The new system might actually drop a clock cycle here and there and might not increase the CPU performance at all, despite the higher reported frequency. Reply

I dont why, but when it comes to AMDs products, i get the worst scores from anandtech reviews.
Maybe,Charlie demirjian was right after all, anandtech hate AMD.
I got the worst 4870 results from anandtech.
At tomshardware and techreport, the 4870 did much better.
In your previous review,the 9850BE reached 3.3GHz on 1.38v.
Do you hate AMD anandtech?

Yea I know the CPU has a bug. I have never seen it I have the patch turn off. But will this new SB help it too. I have not overclocked it (too much just once to see if I could get 2.5, and I did) because I am stil useing a older AM2 board, and I am planing to buy a new board and give the old board and X2 cpu to a freind.

So will it help?
I would love to get to 3 ghz. I have seen some say on fourms they got that. What so you guys think? Reply

"In the end, we know after a good 60 hours of testing, over 600 different settings, 400+ screen shots, and countless reboots that Advanced Clock Calibration works, yet we do not know anymore about ACC at this point from AMD than SpongeBob SquarePants."

AMD does nothing but right their wrongs these days. The SB750 is gonna be big for them. I'm amazed that Anandtech went through so many combinations trying to bring this thing down. They have proven without a doubt that this technology works.

I also can't wait until next week. They have given us confirmation that 790GX and 790FX boards with SB750 will be coming out NEXT WEEK! Also they keep mentioning some part that they "dare not mention". WTF is that going to be? I thought 790GX+SB750 was going to be the big news. Theres something else? Next week will be exciting for AMD in all the GOOD ways. Reply

Yup - I come here to hear about the results of what I call "brutal testing" rather than read somebody's hype or bias or sloppy inconclusive testing. I am still fairly new here but I believe Anandtech is the real thing.
I want that to be true, esp. after wasting my time at tom's bubblegum guide with there trash bias garbage misleading bullschtein socalled reviews.
These guys are working hard to get the real goods - and in contact with AMD, delaying reports promised 'tomorrow' - who cares - they are willing to go to amazing lengths to output accurate info after deeper investigation.
This is no kiddy's website - it's a hard read to get through it; and I know I am not the only one who will reread it to better comprehend what I missed the first time through. This testing is consistent with the articles on 'the 3 amigos' and the one about the recent additions to the AMD line, including the 9950. Take it apart, what makes it squeal.

Also, it seems there is something different about the 9950, and it's not just an oclok 9850.

Looking forward to more next week - and the ?? mystery ?? item????
Big change on the AMD scene - wow. Reply

I've quit reading Tom's Hardware long time ago - when I think it was a good site. However, Anandtech was better overall, and one site was enough :)
As for in depth reviews... this should qualify as an easy reading, look for the technology behind NVidia's 280 and 260 series GPU for a "transistor-oriented" article - that's a hard read indeed Reply

I am really interested to see how an ASUS or DFI board with the new sb do in overclocking and performance. As mentioned this board is more of a feature-rich pick. And just looking at the charts of ACC off on the foxconn vs the ASUS with sb600, I hope there will be more of an improvement with a fresh sb750 variant.

Interesting though about the pci-e 1.1 and lan choices by amd. Is it possible having those two remedied would hinder the improvement by ACC?
Really looking forward to new comparisons to Intel chips with the new change. Hopefully with 45nm parts and ACC, amd can have a good go.

One thing I would like to know though: What are the specs on the sb750 foxconn vs the asus sb600 in terms of the number of phases in power delivery? Reply

I think that there must be some underlying issue with either the chipset drivers or windows itself when it comes to differing final overclocks, as the CPU shouldn't necessarily be aware of what kind of software its running, other than the fact that a few more registers are being used. IS there any evidence that this is a Phenom-specific issue, or might it affect Athlon64's as well? Reply

Quite honestly, either way I would run 64bit over 32bit any day of the week period... I'm sorry but the little bit of extra performance you get OCing really doesn't out weigh the many many advantages 64b vista has over the 32b variant (and over XP). Simply put, 32bit operating systems are all but done in my home... I do run 32bit vista on my laptop but only for the following reasons:

HP put 32bit on here, and it seems to me all their custom drivers and software (which seem to be required to keep the system from crashing) are all 32bit... so oh well.

This is a budget laptop to begin with and it maxes out at 2GB RAM... The extra overhead of 64b would just be more of a performance killer than anything else.

No gaming will be done on this laptop (so no need to worry about future games needing more that 2GB for a process) and I have my desktop at home if I need to manipulate large flat files.